The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Leadbelly wrote:Seriously? I love this website and check the board everyday for topics...I consume the views but rarely post. However this egrigious error has induced me to write.

1. The defense posted very good numbers inspite of the offense. How many 3 and outs did we have? I'm sure some stats junkie can spit that out. Alot is my guess. So while being tired and overworked the defense somehow managed to keep us in games.

2. How good were you the first time you rode a bike? Given his first head coaching job along with the first season he ever called plays, Zorn faced a uphill challenge. Once coaches got film on us and broke down what we did they figured out how to negate the offense from a game. With some experience under his belt and a winning attitude even the most pessimistic Skins fan has to believe that our offense can do bettter. A sucessful offense breeds an ever most sucessful defense as you are putting the opponent in uncomfortable positions. An opposing play-caller has to think much harder when stuck inside their 20 yard line. This compounded by the fact that we improved our defense and now posess the ability to show many more looks has me thrilled.


3. If you wanna be nagative why don't you become a Lions fan...at least you'll always be right

If you were psychologicallyy ready to be other than myth directed, you would have been able to recall that the Skins were close to the bottom of the league in such critical D areas as sacks, creating turnovers, stopping key drives, key stops, goal line stands, blocking punts and field goals, stuffs, playing outstanding games, recovering fumbles, making interceptions. being plain tuckered out, etc. Further, we were close to last in the league in playing flat-out busts acquired in free agency, undeveloped players, and former stars who made diminitive contributions. I haven't checked it out, but I doubt a single player from our D line last year achieved a higher ranking by anyone authorative higher than "average" and that any fair accessor would rate the D line last year as "below average." Further, did any other D line in the league require more fixing at the expense of an insipid offense than ours did before the 09 season. Even at this late date, we've brought in a raw prospect at DE at extreme cost with the hope of replacing Daniels at a position which already has a slew of replacement candidates. Desperation, yes.

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

If your unconscious ego insists on deletions even after knowing all of the above, why don't you root for the Giants?

Leadbelly: Meet Crazyhorse. Much is explained by the yellow text.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Leadbelly wrote:Seriously? I love this website and check the board everyday for topics...I consume the views but rarely post. However this egrigious error has induced me to write.

1. The defense posted very good numbers inspite of the offense. How many 3 and outs did we have? I'm sure some stats junkie can spit that out. Alot is my guess. So while being tired and overworked the defense somehow managed to keep us in games.

2. How good were you the first time you rode a bike? Given his first head coaching job along with the first season he ever called plays, Zorn faced a uphill challenge. Once coaches got film on us and broke down what we did they figured out how to negate the offense from a game. With some experience under his belt and a winning attitude even the most pessimistic Skins fan has to believe that our offense can do bettter. A sucessful offense breeds an ever most sucessful defense as you are putting the opponent in uncomfortable positions. An opposing play-caller has to think much harder when stuck inside their 20 yard line. This compounded by the fact that we improved our defense and now posess the ability to show many more looks has me thrilled.


3. If you wanna be nagative why don't you become a Lions fan...at least you'll always be right

If you were psychologicallyy ready to be other than myth directed, you would have been able to recall that the Skins were close to the bottom of the league in such critical D areas as sacks, creating turnovers, stopping key drives, key stops, goal line stands, blocking punts and field goals, stuffs, playing outstanding games, recovering fumbles, making interceptions. being plain tuckered out, etc. Further, we were close to last in the league in playing flat-out busts acquired in free agency, undeveloped players, and former stars who made diminitive contributions. I haven't checked it out, but I doubt a single player from our D line last year achieved a higher ranking by anyone authorative higher than "average" and that any fair accessor would rate the D line last year as "below average." Further, did any other D line in the league require more fixing at the expense of an insipid offense than ours did before the 09 season. Even at this late date, we've brought in a raw prospect at DE at extreme cost with the hope of replacing Daniels at a position which already has a slew of replacement candidates. Desperation, yes.

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

If your unconscious ego insists on deletions even after knowing all of the above, why don't you root for the Giants?

My new theory is that you don't actually compose these posts, you just pass out on the keyboard and hit submit. I mean, I honestly have no idea what that first part of that opening sentence means.

And you're just making stuff up at this point. The Redskins had 13 interceptions last season, they were tied for 17th in the league in that category. Admittedly, not great but if they had managed to grab just 3 more, they would be 10th in the league. So they clearly were not in the bottom in that category. Bear in mind that 10 of their games came against top 20 passing teams including 6 games against top 10 passing offenses. Yes, more interceptions would be beneficial but the ultimate job of the defense is to stop the opposing offense and they did that with regularity.

You're highlighting the weakness of the defense -- a weakness everyone acknowledges -- and using that one part to stand for the whole. DESPITE being 26th in forced fumbles and 28th in sacks the defense managed to hold opposing teams to 288.8 yards per game, 4th best in the league. They were extremely consistent, ranking 7th against the pass and 8th against the rush.

P.S. Being last in "playing flat-out busts acquired in free agency, undeveloped players, and former stars who made diminitive [sic] contributions" is a good thing.

P.S.S. I would love to see where NFL.com keeps the "being plain tuckered out" stats.

VetSkinsFan wrote:The defense being on the field more than the offense was the single biggest factor IMO.

Actually, the O was on the field more 3 more minutes per game than the D.

AND!!!

The Skins D was on the field less than all but three teams in the NFL!

There goes that myth!

But, on topic. The original post was truly Crazy! The D was the strength of the team. It was however, one of two D's that failed to score a single point and almost never got to the QB or caused turnovers. To become an elite D it must improve in all of these areas.

And I think they have the players to do it now.

I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Leadbelly wrote:Seriously? I love this website and check the board everyday for topics...I consume the views but rarely post. However this egrigious error has induced me to write.

1. The defense posted very good numbers inspite of the offense. How many 3 and outs did we have? I'm sure some stats junkie can spit that out. Alot is my guess. So while being tired and overworked the defense somehow managed to keep us in games.

2. How good were you the first time you rode a bike? Given his first head coaching job along with the first season he ever called plays, Zorn faced a uphill challenge. Once coaches got film on us and broke down what we did they figured out how to negate the offense from a game. With some experience under his belt and a winning attitude even the most pessimistic Skins fan has to believe that our offense can do bettter. A sucessful offense breeds an ever most sucessful defense as you are putting the opponent in uncomfortable positions. An opposing play-caller has to think much harder when stuck inside their 20 yard line. This compounded by the fact that we improved our defense and now posess the ability to show many more looks has me thrilled.


3. If you wanna be nagative why don't you become a Lions fan...at least you'll always be right

If you were psychologicallyy ready to be other than myth directed, you would have been able to recall that the Skins were close to the bottom of the league in such critical D areas as sacks, creating turnovers, stopping key drives, key stops, goal line stands, blocking punts and field goals, stuffs, playing outstanding games, recovering fumbles, making interceptions. being plain tuckered out, etc. Further, we were close to last in the league in playing flat-out busts acquired in free agency, undeveloped players, and former stars who made diminitive contributions. I haven't checked it out, but I doubt a single player from our D line last year achieved a higher ranking by anyone authorative higher than "average" and that any fair accessor would rate the D line last year as "below average." Further, did any other D line in the league require more fixing at the expense of an insipid offense than ours did before the 09 season. Even at this late date, we've brought in a raw prospect at DE at extreme cost with the hope of replacing Daniels at a position which already has a slew of replacement candidates. Desperation, yes.

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

If your unconscious ego insists on deletions even after knowing all of the above, why don't you root for the Giants?

Ever hear of Fletcher, or Landry? Flrtcher should have gone to the pro bowl. Landry was 1st alternate. Our CB's also played very well.

Sorry, I didn't know Fletcher and Landry played on the D line.

I missread. I just saw D. Old eyes.

HEROHAMO wrote:I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

My post was written to explain why the FO decision to focus on the DL rather than the Oline from the draft to the present was rational whether we believe it was the right decision on not. To do that I first showed that last season's "great D" was only an "average" D and had plenty of holes that the FO reasoned had to be filled. I went on from there to complete the explanation.

My whole post shows that the overrating of the D was due to homer myth about the quality of the D and shielded from the eyes of many homers the FO rational.

Are you getting this, Fios? Your straw should be the filter for what is drawn up from the gunk in your cup.

HEROHAMO wrote:I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

The FO did absolutely nothing for the purpose of addressing what we were screaming for. It didn't care what we wanted or thought. Also, it did exactly the opposite of what most of us thought best at the time of its decision. At that time, we were screaming for the fixing of the OL and offense, our most apparent need, not a herd of new feet and millions of dollars for D, which we assumed was solid because of widespread poor estimations of its quality.

I disagree. I think we did have an elite D last season. The # 4 ranking demonstrates that.

The D was very good last year and was hurt significantly by the struggles of the offense, particularly late in games. However, the D last season was certainly not elite. An elite D doesn't finish 28th in sacks, 20th in interceptions, 26th in forced fumbles, and tied for dead last in defensive td's. Very good, yes. Elite, no.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

My post was written to explain why the FO decision to focus on the DL rather than the Oline from the draft to the present was rational whether we believe it was the right decision on not. To do that I first showed that last season's "great D" was only an "average" D and had plenty of holes that the FO reasoned had to be filled. I went on from there to complete the explanation.

My whole post shows that the overrating of the D was due to homer myth about the quality of the D and shielded from the eyes of many homers the FO rational.

Are you getting this, Fios? Your straw should be the filter for what is drawn up from the gunk in your cup.

Yes, why bother to engage me in a debate on the actual facts when you can just avoid them and act like repeating the same thing over and over again strengthens your point. Come talk to me when you have something to actually say. Until then, I'll just assume you've conceded this point.

The Myth of a Great Post.

You may feel that because you ranked first in the use of the word obfuscation, or set records in the field of alienating fans of the same team that you are smart, and know a lot about football.

Well it has been made clear to me by points of the other posters that you rank dead last in the fields of winning over your peers and making points that expand the reader’s knowledge base, which are really the two key factors in a great post.

You are correct when you point out that the front office made more changes to the Defense than the offense, however you fail to put this in the context of what was available.

Jordan Gross resigned with Carolina, we were out gunned in a bidding war for Jason Brown as the Rams overpaid for him (I wanted the guy, but not at that price), we did get Dock back. We already have enough money and talent allocated to carrying the ball. We got slammed in the media for inquiring about Cutler. We looked into what it would cost for Boldin and deemed it too expensive when we had two 2nd rd picks that we want to develop.

Haynesworth was available, and could make a difference. D-Hall was a re-sign, not a new face.

Short of Taking an OT at 13, rather than Orakpo, who was rated as a top ten player, and the premier tackles were gone, We focused on where we could upgrade/get younger.

Our defense should be better this year, but that does not mean it was average last year. It was in fact a good defense.

I'd like to have a talk with your boss. I'm sure he/she and I can find some obscure things you did not do so well last year. That in addition to him/her signing you up for some training should make it possible to take a big ol' dump on your performance evaluation. After all, by your logic, if there is anything that can be improved, and you try to do so.....you suck.

Crazy:
1. mentally deranged; demented; insane.
2. senseless; impractical; totally unsound

Not sure about the horse part

crazyhorse1 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

The FO did absolutely nothing for the purpose of addressing what we were screaming for. It didn't care what we wanted or thought. Also, it did exactly the opposite of what most of us thought best at the time of its decision. At that time, we were screaming for the fixing of the OL and offense, our most apparent need, not a herd of new feet and millions of dollars for D, which we assumed was solid because of widespread poor estimations of its quality.

Ahhh... a perfect example of why ignorance is bliss.

Fios wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

My post was written to explain why the FO decision to focus on the DL rather than the Oline from the draft to the present was rational whether we believe it was the right decision on not. To do that I first showed that last season's "great D" was only an "average" D and had plenty of holes that the FO reasoned had to be filled. I went on from there to complete the explanation.

My whole post shows that the overrating of the D was due to homer myth about the quality of the D and shielded from the eyes of many homers the FO rational.

Are you getting this, Fios? Your straw should be the filter for what is drawn up from the gunk in your cup.

Yes, why bother to engage me in a debate on the actual facts when you can just avoid them and act like repeating the same thing over and over again strengthens your point. Come talk to me when you have something to actually say. Until then, I'll just assume you've conceded this point.

You have never addressed my argument and don't seem to understand it. You give me facts that argue the quality of the D, which are only somewhat relevant to my argument, but do not fully engage it. My argument is, in essence-- that the F0's opinion of the D differs sharply from the general public's opinion of it as evidenced by its actions. To defeat my argument you have to forget your own assessment of the D and show that the general public and the FO had essentially the same opinion of the quality of the D just before it made its decision which way to go in the off-season.

This is not an argument about the actual quality of the D. It is an argument about perceptions. My further point was that the FO's decisions were rational from its point of view, if not from the point of view of the general public.

So far, only one post has addressed the issue raised by my argument-- that post contradicted my argument and claimed the GP was screaming for help on the defensive line at the time of its decision and implied that the FO acted in response to that scream. That post was a valid response to my argument. I countered that as best I could by saying the GP was calling for help for the offense and offensive line, not the defensive line, at the time of its decision to concentrate on the D. To win the argument I have to show that the large majority of people posting on this board supported help for the offense at the time of decision. My opponent (s) have to show the opposite if they want to win the actual argument.


Fios, you can't win an argument you are not in. However, if you want to change the argument to my accessment of last year's D as the primary focus, I'm game.

Please explain to me how you can "rate" last year's D higher than "G" or " slightly above average" in the face of these facts already established on this board-- It finished 28th in sacks, 20th in interceptions, 26th in forced fumbles, and tied for dead last in defensive td's.

It also repeatedly allowed opponents to run the clock down on us, especially in the last part of the season and especially in the clutch.

It also featured old players on the line who were last year no better than average, a free-agent bust, two young tackles who are still question marks after two years of play, a line of no group or individual distinction, a starting linebacker who showed serious limitations, a cornerback (Smoot) who is no better than average, a starting cornerback who last year was cut from another team because of extremely poor play but showed competence with us, and contained only two players who had a shot at the pro bowl.

I also assert that it's high rankings in a few areas were greatly assisted by the style of play adopted by our opponents because they didn't believe our offensive could beat them or that our D was capable of stopping them from running out the clock. Without those rankings, which I hold to be inflated and therefore invalid, I hold that there is no rational reason to believe that our defense was more than average.

dad23hogjrs wrote:The Myth of a Great Post.

You may feel that because you ranked first in the use of the word obfuscation, or set records in the field of alienating fans of the same team that you are smart, and know a lot about football.

Well it has been made clear to me by points of the other posters that you rank dead last in the fields of winning over your peers and making points that expand the reader’s knowledge base, which are really the two key factors in a great post.

You are correct when you point out that the front office made more changes to the Defense than the offense, however you fail to put this in the context of what was available.

Jordan Gross resigned with Carolina, we were out gunned in a bidding war for Jason Brown as the Rams overpaid for him (I wanted the guy, but not at that price), we did get Dock back. We already have enough money and talent allocated to carrying the ball. We got slammed in the media for inquiring about Cutler. We looked into what it would cost for Boldin and deemed it too expensive when we had two 2nd rd picks that we want to develop.

Haynesworth was available, and could make a difference. D-Hall was a re-sign, not a new face.

Short of Taking an OT at 13, rather than Orakpo, who was rated as a top ten player, and the premier tackles were gone, We focused on where we could upgrade/get younger.

Our defense should be better this year, but that does not mean it was average last year. It was in fact a good defense.

I'd like to have a talk with your boss. I'm sure he/she and I can find some obscure things you did not do so well last year. That in addition to him/her signing you up for some training should make it possible to take a big ol' dump on your performance evaluation. After all, by your logic, if there is anything that can be improved, and you try to do so.....you suck.

Crazy:
1. mentally deranged; demented; insane.
2. senseless; impractical; totally unsound

Not sure about the horse part

Your central argument in the above post in excellent and extremely difficult to counter. I don't see how I can defeat the notion that Redskin decisions were based on expediency rather than a rational plan to concentrate on D based on F0 rational assestments of the D. You might be right. In any case, I must be wrong in that I can't prove my assertion and might be wrong in fact.

Thanks for the debate.

As for my mental status, you are only warmth. You would be closer to truth of it if you could figure out the "horse" part. I assume that you already suspect I buried it in the contradiction implied by the two parts of my name.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

dad23hogjrs wrote:The Myth of a Great Post.

You may feel that because you ranked first in the use of the word obfuscation, or set records in the field of alienating fans of the same team that you are smart, and know a lot about football.

Well it has been made clear to me by points of the other posters that you rank dead last in the fields of winning over your peers and making points that expand the reader’s knowledge base, which are really the two key factors in a great post.

You are correct when you point out that the front office made more changes to the Defense than the offense, however you fail to put this in the context of what was available.

Jordan Gross resigned with Carolina, we were out gunned in a bidding war for Jason Brown as the Rams overpaid for him (I wanted the guy, but not at that price), we did get Dock back. We already have enough money and talent allocated to carrying the ball. We got slammed in the media for inquiring about Cutler. We looked into what it would cost for Boldin and deemed it too expensive when we had two 2nd rd picks that we want to develop.

Haynesworth was available, and could make a difference. D-Hall was a re-sign, not a new face.

Short of Taking an OT at 13, rather than Orakpo, who was rated as a top ten player, and the premier tackles were gone, We focused on where we could upgrade/get younger.

Our defense should be better this year, but that does not mean it was average last year. It was in fact a good defense.

I'd like to have a talk with your boss. I'm sure he/she and I can find some obscure things you did not do so well last year. That in addition to him/her signing you up for some training should make it possible to take a big ol' dump on your performance evaluation. After all, by your logic, if there is anything that can be improved, and you try to do so.....you suck.

Crazy:
1. mentally deranged; demented; insane.
2. senseless; impractical; totally unsound

Not sure about the horse part

I like that this has been on here in this form for few mintues. My mind races with the question of wether he is simply going to quote me and let it die, or if he is constructing some grand response which will no doubt make him seem vastly superior to myself

OH THE SUSPENSE!!!!

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Fios wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

My post was written to explain why the FO decision to focus on the DL rather than the Oline from the draft to the present was rational whether we believe it was the right decision on not. To do that I first showed that last season's "great D" was only an "average" D and had plenty of holes that the FO reasoned had to be filled. I went on from there to complete the explanation.

My whole post shows that the overrating of the D was due to homer myth about the quality of the D and shielded from the eyes of many homers the FO rational.

Are you getting this, Fios? Your straw should be the filter for what is drawn up from the gunk in your cup.

Yes, why bother to engage me in a debate on the actual facts when you can just avoid them and act like repeating the same thing over and over again strengthens your point. Come talk to me when you have something to actually say. Until then, I'll just assume you've conceded this point.

You have never addressed my argument and don't seem to understand it. You give me facts that argue the quality of the D, which are only somewhat relevant to my argument, but do not fully engage it. My argument is, in essence-- that the F0's opinion of the D differs sharply from the general public's opinion of it as evidenced by its actions. To defeat my argument you have to forget your own assessment of the D and show that the general public and the FO had essentially the same opinion of the quality of the D just before it made its decision which way to go in the off-season.

This is not an argument about the actual quality of the D. It is an argument about perceptions. My further point was that the FO's decisions were rational from its point of view, if not from the point of view of the general public.

So far, only one post has addressed the issue raised by my argument-- that post contradicted my argument and claimed the GP was screaming for help on the defensive line at the time of its decision and implied that the FO acted in response to that scream. That post was a valid response to my argument. I countered that as best I could by saying the GP was calling for help for the offense and offensive line, not the defensive line, at the time of its decision to concentrate on the D. To win the argument I have to show that the large majority of people posting on this board supported help for the offense at the time of decision. My opponent (s) have to show the opposite if they want to win the actual argument.


Fios, you can't win an argument you are not in. However, if you want to change the argument to my accessment of last year's D as the primary focus, I'm game.

Please explain to me how you can "rate" last year's D higher than "G" or " slightly above average" in the face of these facts already established on this board-- It finished 28th in sacks, 20th in interceptions, 26th in forced fumbles, and tied for dead last in defensive td's.

It also repeatedly allowed opponents to run the clock down on us, especially in the last part of the season and especially in the clutch.

It also featured old players on the line who were last year no better than average, a free-agent bust, two young tackles who are still question marks after two years of play, a line of no group or individual distinction, a starting linebacker who showed serious limitations, a cornerback (Smoot) who is no better than average, a starting cornerback who last year was cut from another team because of extremely poor play but showed competence with us, and contained only two players who had a shot at the pro bowl.

I also assert that it's high rankings in a few areas were greatly assisted by the style of play adopted by our opponents because they didn't believe our offensive could beat them or that our D was capable of stopping them from running out the clock. Without those rankings, which I hold to be inflated and therefore invalid, I hold that there is no rational reason to believe that our defense was more than average.

This is full of complete nonsense, I'm done with you

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Fios wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

My post was written to explain why the FO decision to focus on the DL rather than the Oline from the draft to the present was rational whether we believe it was the right decision on not. To do that I first showed that last season's "great D" was only an "average" D and had plenty of holes that the FO reasoned had to be filled. I went on from there to complete the explanation.

My whole post shows that the overrating of the D was due to homer myth about the quality of the D and shielded from the eyes of many homers the FO rational.

Are you getting this, Fios? Your straw should be the filter for what is drawn up from the gunk in your cup.

Yes, why bother to engage me in a debate on the actual facts when you can just avoid them and act like repeating the same thing over and over again strengthens your point. Come talk to me when you have something to actually say. Until then, I'll just assume you've conceded this point.

You have never addressed my argument and don't seem to understand it. You give me facts that argue the quality of the D, which are only somewhat relevant to my argument, but do not fully engage it. My argument is, in essence-- that the F0's opinion of the D differs sharply from the general public's opinion of it as evidenced by its actions. To defeat my argument you have to forget your own assessment of the D and show that the general public and the FO had essentially the same opinion of the quality of the D just before it made its decision which way to go in the off-season.

This is not an argument about the actual quality of the D. It is an argument about perceptions. My further point was that the FO's decisions were rational from its point of view, if not from the point of view of the general public.

So far, only one post has addressed the issue raised by my argument-- that post contradicted my argument and claimed the GP was screaming for help on the defensive line at the time of its decision and implied that the FO acted in response to that scream. That post was a valid response to my argument. I countered that as best I could by saying the GP was calling for help for the offense and offensive line, not the defensive line, at the time of its decision to concentrate on the D. To win the argument I have to show that the large majority of people posting on this board supported help for the offense at the time of decision. My opponent (s) have to show the opposite if they want to win the actual argument.


Fios, you can't win an argument you are not in. However, if you want to change the argument to my accessment of last year's D as the primary focus, I'm game.

Please explain to me how you can "rate" last year's D higher than "G" or " slightly above average" in the face of these facts already established on this board-- It finished 28th in sacks, 20th in interceptions, 26th in forced fumbles, and tied for dead last in defensive td's.

It also repeatedly allowed opponents to run the clock down on us, especially in the last part of the season and especially in the clutch.

It also featured old players on the line who were last year no better than average, a free-agent bust, two young tackles who are still question marks after two years of play, a line of no group or individual distinction, a starting linebacker who showed serious limitations, a cornerback (Smoot) who is no better than average, a starting cornerback who last year was cut from another team because of extremely poor play but showed competence with us, and contained only two players who had a shot at the pro bowl.

I also assert that it's high rankings in a few areas were greatly assisted by the style of play adopted by our opponents because they didn't believe our offensive could beat them or that our D was capable of stopping them from running out the clock. Without those rankings, which I hold to be inflated and therefore invalid, I hold that there is no rational reason to believe that our defense was more than average.

I dispute your contention that the FO worked on D because they felt last year's team was sub-par. They were forced to make D the focus because of circumstance. They have also tried to make upgrades to the O, where possible, but have not overreached as they did in the past. I also disagree that people here, and fans in general, did not understand the need for help at DT, DE, and SAM LB. Keeping Hall around was also prudent as we needed a replacement for Springs, whose contract was untenable considering his injury history.

dad23hogjrs wrote:The Myth of a Great Post.

You may feel that because you ranked first in the use of the word obfuscation, or set records in the field of alienating fans of the same team that you are smart, and know a lot about football.

Well it has been made clear to me by points of the other posters that you rank dead last in the fields of winning over your peers and making points that expand the reader’s knowledge base, which are really the two key factors in a great post.

You are correct when you point out that the front office made more changes to the Defense than the offense, however you fail to put this in the context of what was available.

Jordan Gross resigned with Carolina, we were out gunned in a bidding war for Jason Brown as the Rams overpaid for him (I wanted the guy, but not at that price), we did get Dock back. We already have enough money and talent allocated to carrying the ball. We got slammed in the media for inquiring about Cutler. We looked into what it would cost for Boldin and deemed it too expensive when we had two 2nd rd picks that we want to develop.

Haynesworth was available, and could make a difference. D-Hall was a re-sign, not a new face.

Short of Taking an OT at 13, rather than Orakpo, who was rated as a top ten player, and the premier tackles were gone, We focused on where we could upgrade/get younger.

Our defense should be better this year, but that does not mean it was average last year. It was in fact a good defense.

I'd like to have a talk with your boss. I'm sure he/she and I can find some obscure things you did not do so well last year. That in addition to him/her signing you up for some training should make it possible to take a big ol' dump on your performance evaluation. After all, by your logic, if there is anything that can be improved, and you try to do so.....you suck.

Crazy:
1. mentally deranged; demented; insane.
2. senseless; impractical; totally unsound

Not sure about the horse part

Maybe only 1/2 of the horse

It most be said that Greg Blache's has distanced himself in the way he runs the Redskins D after Gregg Williams departed.

Williams was noted for being ultra agressive, frequently blitzing the opposing QB with atypical schemes. Blache has preffered to avoid the "big play or bust" mentality and contain rival offenses by stopping the run. That's the priority Blache has installed in DC. That's one reason there was a dropoff in turnovers last season.

Still, I can see where CrazyHorse is coming from. After the end of last season, most of the fans were crying for a better Oline, and a better offense.

The FO payed much more attention to the D the offseason, basically going against established "fan" logic that the Offense needed to be bolstered. Yes, some players have been brought in to improve the Oline, but you can hardly assert that particular part of the team has been re-enforced as the Defense.

"Bend and don't break". That's my opinion of last season's D. Hardly "elite", though.

"Bend and don't break". That's my opinion of last season's D. Hardly "elite", though.

Completely agree with that assessment of the D.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

"Bend and don't break". That's my opinion of last season's D. Hardly "elite", though.

Completely agree with that assessment of the D.

Let' be straight. The D broke several times last year when it was crucial it not break.

Fios wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Fios wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

My post was written to explain why the FO decision to focus on the DL rather than the Oline from the draft to the present was rational whether we believe it was the right decision on not. To do that I first showed that last season's "great D" was only an "average" D and had plenty of holes that the FO reasoned had to be filled. I went on from there to complete the explanation.

My whole post shows that the overrating of the D was due to homer myth about the quality of the D and shielded from the eyes of many homers the FO rational.

Are you getting this, Fios? Your straw should be the filter for what is drawn up from the gunk in your cup.

Yes, why bother to engage me in a debate on the actual facts when you can just avoid them and act like repeating the same thing over and over again strengthens your point. Come talk to me when you have something to actually say. Until then, I'll just assume you've conceded this point.

You have never addressed my argument and don't seem to understand it. You give me facts that argue the quality of the D, which are only somewhat relevant to my argument, but do not fully engage it. My argument is, in essence-- that the F0's opinion of the D differs sharply from the general public's opinion of it as evidenced by its actions. To defeat my argument you have to forget your own assessment of the D and show that the general public and the FO had essentially the same opinion of the quality of the D just before it made its decision which way to go in the off-season.

This is not an argument about the actual quality of the D. It is an argument about perceptions. My further point was that the FO's decisions were rational from its point of view, if not from the point of view of the general public.

So far, only one post has addressed the issue raised by my argument-- that post contradicted my argument and claimed the GP was screaming for help on the defensive line at the time of its decision and implied that the FO acted in response to that scream. That post was a valid response to my argument. I countered that as best I could by saying the GP was calling for help for the offense and offensive line, not the defensive line, at the time of its decision to concentrate on the D. To win the argument I have to show that the large majority of people posting on this board supported help for the offense at the time of decision. My opponent (s) have to show the opposite if they want to win the actual argument.


Fios, you can't win an argument you are not in. However, if you want to change the argument to my accessment of last year's D as the primary focus, I'm game.

Please explain to me how you can "rate" last year's D higher than "G" or " slightly above average" in the face of these facts already established on this board-- It finished 28th in sacks, 20th in interceptions, 26th in forced fumbles, and tied for dead last in defensive td's.

It also repeatedly allowed opponents to run the clock down on us, especially in the last part of the season and especially in the clutch.

It also featured old players on the line who were last year no better than average, a free-agent bust, two young tackles who are still question marks after two years of play, a line of no group or individual distinction, a starting linebacker who showed serious limitations, a cornerback (Smoot) who is no better than average, a starting cornerback who last year was cut from another team because of extremely poor play but showed competence with us, and contained only two players who had a shot at the pro bowl.

I also assert that it's high rankings in a few areas were greatly assisted by the style of play adopted by our opponents because they didn't believe our offensive could beat them or that our D was capable of stopping them from running out the clock. Without those rankings, which I hold to be inflated and therefore invalid, I hold that there is no rational reason to believe that our defense was more than average.

This is full of complete nonsense, I'm done with you

If you hadn't insulted my first post without bothering to understand it first, I would not be angry at you now. I put forth my best effort on that post and you used it only to only to discredit and insult me. In the years I've been on this board, I have never done that to you. Our barbs in the past have been in the spirit of humor and fun, which you are good at. This time you went too far. I tried again and again to explain to you the point of my post, but still you refused to respond to it or to me as a rational human being, which I happen to be. Right now, I'm done with you too.

crazyhorse1 wrote: I countered that as best I could by saying the GP was calling for help for the offense and offensive line, not the defensive line, at the time of its decision to concentrate on the D.

So let me get this straight... a large part of your contention in this thread is that the FO is ignoring the offense to spite the desires of their fans? Are you figgin' serious with that argument? Please tell me which teams consult with their fans on how to upgrade their respective team? Are you suggesting, even for a second, that the fans have a better understanding or working knowledge of the team right now over the coaches? Are you seriously suggesting that the FO ignore the coaches and turn to fans for advise on how to better the offense?

You're killing me with that... too funny. Are you seriously suggesting that the coaches - and arguably one of the most respected o-line coaches in the league in Joe Bugel - are clueless and the FO should be turning to fans instead? Hahahaha... that's good comedy.

To win the argument I have to show that the large majority of people posting on this board supported help for the offense at the time of decision.

Wrong. To win your argument, it has to be based on something other than common ignorance. You have to show firsthand knowledge of the offense as it stands now... not last year. They have brought in players to compete for o-line positions, and in fact, 3/5's of the offensive line could be different from last year. If you have firsthand knowledge, as of right now, that these guys aren't cutting it... then share it with us.

You see, perhaps the coaches know what they have and know how to fix the offense, and perhaps drafting a bunch of mid to late round o-line rookies isn't the answer, per their assessment. Further, you obviously don't understand basic football strategy, in that a stronger defense puts your offense in a better position to succeed. The Steelers had, by far, the worst o-line in the league last year, yet their #1 ranked defense kept them in games and gave them a better chance of winning.

Why don't you blow on and tell us more about Samuels mysterious ankle injury.

Listen, the clear weaknesses on the Redskins last year were the offensive and defensive lines. The talent was there, in both FA and in the draft, to upgrade the defensive line, significantly. However, the only FAs worth getting for the o-line were drastically overpaid (Jason Brown, for instance) for mediocre talent, and by the time we drafted, it was a choice between the best 4-3 DE in the draft (Orakpo), or a OT that was the 4th best prospect at the position.

If there was an OT in the supplemental draft who was as well-regarded as Jarmon, I'm sure we would have gone after him. However, there wasn't.

Next year, the o-line. Shrug.

And I think last year's defense was better than "bend but don't break," because that connotes a defense that gives up a lot of yards but not a lot of points. Last time I checked...we gave up the 4th least yards in the NFL...that's not a lot of bending or breaking. But the Skins defensive line was severely weak in the passrush and could stand to be upgraded...and that's exactly what we did.

SkinsFreak wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote: I countered that as best I could by saying the GP was calling for help for the offense and offensive line, not the defensive line, at the time of its decision to concentrate on the D.

So let me get this straight... a large part of your contention in this thread is that the FO is ignoring the offense to spite the desires of their fans? Are you figgin' serious with that argument? Please tell me which teams consult with their fans on how to upgrade their respective team? Are you suggesting, even for a second, that the fans have a better understanding or working knowledge of the team right now over the coaches? Are you seriously suggesting that the FO ignore the coaches and turn to fans for advise on how to better the offense?

You're killing me with that... too funny. Are you seriously suggesting that the coaches - and arguably one of the most respected o-line coaches in the league in Joe Bugel - are clueless and the FO should be turning to fans instead? Hahahaha... that's good comedy.

To win the argument I have to show that the large majority of people posting on this board supported help for the offense at the time of decision.

Wrong. To win your argument, it has to be based on something other than common ignorance. You have to show firsthand knowledge of the offense as it stands now... not last year. They have brought in players to compete for o-line positions, and in fact, 3/5's of the offensive line could be different from last year. If you have firsthand knowledge, as of right now, that these guys aren't cutting it... then share it with us.

You see, perhaps the coaches know what they have and know how to fix the offense, and perhaps drafting a bunch of mid to late round o-line rookies isn't the answer, per their assessment. Further, you obviously don't understand basic football strategy, in that a stronger defense puts your offense in a better position to succeed. The Steelers had, by far, the worst o-line in the league last year, yet their #1 ranked defense kept them in games and gave them a better chance of winning.

Why don't you blow on and tell us more about Samuels mysterious ankle injury.

Let me be straight with you, I believe that fans' opinions were not and should not have been considered at all by the FO when it made football decisions for 09. Further, I have repeatedly said that the F0 made logical decisions based on knowledge and assessments that were accurate. Fans do not make logical assessments. They base their opinions on hopes and dreams and back them by cherry picking a few ratings that support their hopes and dreams. Further, I said that ratings were unreliable and special circumstances could skew them.


If you agree with the above paragraph you agree with me and the basis of all my posts. We are in agreement and have no argument.

I do not believe that FO's should ignore the coaches. I believe F0's work with coaches and that both the FO and coaches collectively make team decisions and that that is the way it ought to be.

If you agree with the above statement you also agree with me. Again, we have not argument.

If the FO listened to the fans rather than Joe Bugel, I would think the F0 totally insane and scream for a new F0. If you too share this view, we again have no argument.

I don't need any first hand knowledge about the quality of this year's offense because all of my remarks were about last year and almost all were about defense. My argument is as I have represented it above. If I come upon knowledge about how things are going with this year's I will share them with you on a new thread. My argument on this thread is that the F0 made logical decisions about developing the defense at the time it made them-- before the acquistion of Haynesworth and the draft.

In your third paragraph, I believe in the truth of every football remark you made. We are in perfect agreement with every single point. Again, we have no argument.

I sincerely believe that your post contains no principle or fact about which we disagree yet is riddled with the strange idea that I believe the opposite of what you are saying. As far as I can tell from your post, you and I have identical beliefs on every essential element of my argument.

Here is my essential arguement stated as plainly as I can. Redskins management based its personnel decision on logic and realistic assessments. Redskin fans base their notions about the team on hope, dreams, and subjective assessments justified by unreliable ratings.

I think you believe the above as well as other things I believe. I think that we may differ on individual player assessments or personally regard last year's D at different quality levels but those differences, that might not even exist, as far as I know, are minor and to be expected.

Sorry, based on your post, I have to put you down as a supported on my argument.

I won't put you down as a personal supporter of me. You're misrepresented everything I've written, attributed to me the opposite of my views and then ridiculed me for believing things that I don't believe and have not suggested I believe. You have either not unstood my post, not carefully read my post, or or writing with deliberate malice and invented reasons for mockery.

If you have failed to understand my posts, I apologize for not being clearer.

If you have not carefully read my posts, you should not have yet posted a response.

If you have written with malice and deliberate distortion, you should get control of yourself.

If you have written what you have because you think I am arrogant and think that I think I am smarter than you or not, that's your problem. I have no way of knowing whether I am smarter than you are not. You might just be pretending not to understand my posts.

crazyhorse1 wrote: The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

well now! that makes things a lot clearer